You know where I stand. The time to have pulled the trigger on that was two years ago. So by all means do it now before the kid has no value at all.
The Training Camp Thread
- Thread starter andyt
- Start date
You know where I stand. The time to have pulled the trigger on that was two years ago. So by all means do it now before the kid has no value at all.
ThinIce
Well-known member
Ouch! True, but ouch!
I was with you by this time last year... but I suspect Francis is finally at the point where he's more than ready to deepen the rebuild.
CanadaCanes
Well-known member
It was a terrible pick overall by JR despite the fact he thought he was lucky that Murphy fell to them at 12! The kid could skate like the wind at the Junior level but had already had his bell rung numerous times in Kitchener and his size was a huge issue for his position. Maybe some team can try converting him to a forward.
Elsker
Well-known member
As an isolated case, it's too soon to give up on Murphy as a NHL defenseman. He's only 22 and never really had the luxury of proper development in the AHL, mostly due to our lack of depth during the early years of his pro career. He could easily end up being an offensive juggernaut as a defenseman, especially on the power play and a 3-on-3 OT unit.
However, from a GM perspective the right O for D offer might be of interest. Lord knows, JR would have made a run at a young puck-moving offensive defensemen like Murphy, particularly with his right shot on the PP. Protected minutes, no problem.
Taking inventory, we now have on the team and in the pipeline:
LEFT SHOT: Hanifin, Fleury, Slavin, Jordan, Carrick, and Rissanen (plus maybe Lowe), with Liles (UFA) and Hainsey (through '16-17) as veteran plugs
RIGHT SHOT: Faulk, Wisniewski (through '16-17), Murphy, Pesce, Biega, and McKeown
So, if one believes our future D-pairings could be something like this:
Hanifin / Faulk
Fleury / Pesce
Carrick / Murphy or Biega
Jordan or Rissanen / Biega or McKeown
Well, then, yes Murphy might be expendable, especially for a team that needs wingers.
However, from a GM perspective the right O for D offer might be of interest. Lord knows, JR would have made a run at a young puck-moving offensive defensemen like Murphy, particularly with his right shot on the PP. Protected minutes, no problem.
Taking inventory, we now have on the team and in the pipeline:
LEFT SHOT: Hanifin, Fleury, Slavin, Jordan, Carrick, and Rissanen (plus maybe Lowe), with Liles (UFA) and Hainsey (through '16-17) as veteran plugs
RIGHT SHOT: Faulk, Wisniewski (through '16-17), Murphy, Pesce, Biega, and McKeown
So, if one believes our future D-pairings could be something like this:
Hanifin / Faulk
Fleury / Pesce
Carrick / Murphy or Biega
Jordan or Rissanen / Biega or McKeown
Well, then, yes Murphy might be expendable, especially for a team that needs wingers.
Elsker
Well-known member
Also, I heard Forslund make a passing comment to Maniscalco last night on The Aftermath when Nordstrom's name came up that included the phrase "well, considering the waiver aspect...".
Didn't catch the whole comment or context of that remark, but that's an angle I hadn't considered before.
Do you know if Nordstrom is subject to waivers, cmaleski2?
If so, he might have more sticking power on the roster than just earning it via performance alone.
EDIT: Well, found my own answer:
Didn't catch the whole comment or context of that remark, but that's an angle I hadn't considered before.
Do you know if Nordstrom is subject to waivers, cmaleski2?
If so, he might have more sticking power on the roster than just earning it via performance alone.
EDIT: Well, found my own answer:
Last edited:
Or just another right shot defense prospect. This doesn't have to be all that complicated. And the reason I keep banging on about this is that I feel there's some urgency to move Murphy before he proves beyond a shadow of a doubt to be mostly useless ... other than in 3 on 3 situations, in which I feel fairly certain he will excel. Still, those are limited and he's a specialty player on a team that is several years away from having the luxury of carrying that kind of player.
Nordstrom probably sticks not just because he's got to clear waivers, but also because he's versatile enough to bide his time on the 4th line and still fill up the lines as needed. Kind of like the way they used Nestrasil last season. If we were a veteran laden playoff team you probably don't keep two of those guys, but we're .... ummm ... not that.
SlapShots
Well-known member
I agree- the writing on the wall with him was when the Russian scored on him in Jr. Worlds. It was like watching Joe Corvo- lite. He dazzles folks with his speed and his hands, but that does not make him a defenseman,
CarolinaPen
Active member
Even though JR is an easy target, in this case I don't think it is fair. Take a look at the 2011 NHL Draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NHL_Entry_Draft
This was a relatively weak draft that had some good players at the top of the draft and some other talent scattered about. What D, that was still on the board, should JR have taken here? Klefbom is the only easy hindsight pick. There really aren't that many forwards that would have been obvious better picks here either...even with 5 year of hindsight data. At 22 and without a full NHL season behind him, it is too early to give up on Murphy....especially when you compare him to his peers in the draft.
CanadaCanes
Well-known member
You didn't have to pick a D if there was not much there, especially considering JR's past history with developing D!!!
And take a look at the rankings. Central Scouting had him as the 9th best NA skater, ISS had him as 8th overall. So based on that, taking him 12th isn't that big a reach. But just like 2008 when Boychuk was ranked 8th among NA skaters, the ratings don't tell the whole story.
CarolinaPen
Active member
Sure, what forward is clearly better and a can't miss guy that was still on the board? Also remember that forwards tend to develop quicker than D so they will have likely better career numbers at this point.
True. But look at the rest of the first round after Murphy. Only 3 guys have played more NHL games than Murphy; JT Miller, Connor Murphy (dman) and Rickard Rakell. There are 3 guys in that draft that haven't played a NHL game yet. Only a handful in the rest of the draft have played more than him, Brandon Saad (43rd overall) and Andrew Shaw (139th overall) among them.
You know what I'm going to say here, right?
SCOUTING and trusting your scouts.
Let's just pluck out Knyzev, Tselios and Heerema off the top of the bust pile for examination. Jimmy sometimes let his own opinion ride sometimes, especially with 1st round picks, and sometimes at the expense of what his scouts told him. It's a little off book to include Murphy in that group but in those three cases we have had some public comments to back this up.
And to be honest, given the depth in that draft I'm not even all that mad at Jimmy for taking a stab at Murphy. I just think it was exceptionally bad timing to take a flyer on the tiny skilled d-man option given the state of the franchise's organizational depth chart at the time. But dangle a "puck mover" with elite skating skills in front of Rutherford and you know what's going to happen. Sometimes it works (trading for Hedican), sometimes it kind of works (hey, we got SOME service out of Tanabe) and sometimes your dog barfs all over the rug.
Last edited:
stilltheman
New member
You've answered your own question, but to confirm what Forslund said...I thought he said that 'basically....he's on the team' at the end of that.
cmaleski2
Well-known member
Pesce, Slavin, McGinn, and Derek Ryan to Charlotte, Fleury back to Red Deer.
Barring injury that sets our opening night roster at 13 forwards, 7 Dmen and the 2 goalies. Hanifin makes the team (for now), and I expect that if everyone is healthy Jordan, Murphy, and Liles will form a 3 man rotation for the bottom 3 D pairing at least in the early going.
At forward the lines have been pretty fluid but it wouldn't surprise me to see the same forward lines that we played last night vs. the Pens with Malone the healthy extra in the opener.
Barring injury that sets our opening night roster at 13 forwards, 7 Dmen and the 2 goalies. Hanifin makes the team (for now), and I expect that if everyone is healthy Jordan, Murphy, and Liles will form a 3 man rotation for the bottom 3 D pairing at least in the early going.
At forward the lines have been pretty fluid but it wouldn't surprise me to see the same forward lines that we played last night vs. the Pens with Malone the healthy extra in the opener.
Last edited:
Elsker
Well-known member
I agree with both assessments above...including the "yeesh". Protected minutes and offensive zone starts, to be sure. And, never hurts to watch from the "it all looks so easy" press row seats every third game or so, if indeed there is a true rotation.
"Just watch _______ [insert young defensive phenom's name here]".
Almost tempted to make a crack about having a checking third line that we call our second. But, it's truly a bit more like Brind'Amour's two-way second line that took on the opposition's top line...especially if we could get Jordan scoring like Brind'Amour at dagger-like moments in the game.
So, Nash and Gerbe in our top-6, if this line-up is to be believed. That's an over-slot on paper, but may not matter that much if Peters rolls lines. The even-strength minutes for all will be somewhat distributed, although that first line gets the preferred O-zone starts and that second gets the preferred D-zone starts.
Repeat for the third and fourth. Special teams for the PP come from the first and third. PK from the second and fourth.
Lots of options available from that basic structure. Certainly will work for now, although not going to surprise me a bit to see the Staals back together with Versteeg for strength-on-strength match-ups and the young'uns running wild on the second either.
Good to see team chemistry evident, even if lines are still too shaken up to have gelled just yet.